 |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
photo: BETHESDA SOFTWORKS (VIDEOGAME) OVERVIEW The Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether violent videogames can be stripped of their First Amendment protections and placed in the same restricted-access category as obscene materials. At issue in the case is a California law that prohibits retailers from selling or renting such games to minors. While the Constitution gives adults almost unlimited rights to read, hear or watch what they want, minors are sometimes treated differently under First Amendment law, as judges try to weigh the rights of individuals against the interests of society at large. |
Are violent videogames
By JESS BRAVIN In the virtual world of the videogame “Fallout 3,” the creators depict a post-apocalyptic Washington, D.C., where landmarks like the U.S. Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial lie in ruins. But in the real world, it’s Washington that might take a toll on the $10.5 billion videogame industry. Later this year, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether violent videogames such as “Fallout 3,” “Resistance: Fall of Man” and “Grand Theft Auto” can be stripped of their First Amendment protections and placed in the same restricted-access category as obscene materials. RULING BY SUMMER At issue in the Supreme Court case is a California law passed in 2005, which prohibits retailers from selling or renting such games to minors. California based its law on findings that certain games stimulate “feelings of aggression” and promote “violent antisocial or aggressive behavior.” The law never took effect, though, because lower courts found it violated free-expression rights. In a 2009 ruling, a federal appeals court in San Francisco said the state provided no credible research showing that playing violent videogames harmed minors, and found that the law was an unconstitutional effort to “control a minor’s thoughts.” California asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s decision. The justices heard arguments from both the state and the videogame industry in November, and are expected to make their ruling by the summer. While the Constitution gives adults almost unlimited rights to read, hear or watch what they want, minors are sometimes treated differently under First Amendment law, as judges try to weigh the rights of individuals against the interests of society at large. For instance, as California’s lawyers reminded the Supreme Court, the government does have the power to restrict minors’ access to obscene materials, such as explicit magazines and videos. Indeed, in recent years, the Supreme Court has been taking a more protective view toward youth. In 2007, the high court approved punishing a high-school student for hoisting a banner that allegedly made light of smoking marijuana, ruling that the importance of a school’s antidrug policies outweighed students’ free- In other rulings, the court has reduced maximum penalties for juvenile offenders, reasoning they are less culpable than adults because their characters are not yet fully developed. ‘LITERALLY KILLING’ The California law’s sponsor, Democratic state Sen. Leland Yee of San Francisco, is a child psychologist. He said he felt compelled to act after a parent showed him violent sequences in “Grand Theft Auto: Vice City.” “When you push a button, you literally are hurting, killing, maiming another human being” in the virtual space, says Sen. Yee. The videogame industry says allowing the law to stand could stifle a new art form, while the movie business and other media industries worry that a broad ruling against videogames could open the door to restrictions on their content as well. At the November hearing, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged California’s lawyers on that point. “Could you get rid of rap music?” she asked. Zackery Morazzini, a California deputy attorney general, said music might not be as “directly harmful to the development of minors in the way that we know that violent videogames can be.” State lawmakers cited studies suggesting that games are “exemplary teachers of aggression,” he said, because the player commits virtual acts of “obscene violence.” Paul Smith, the lawyer representing the videogame industry, said such distinctions are baseless. “We have a history in this country of new mediums coming along and people vastly over-reacting to them, thinking the sky is falling, our children are all going to be turned into criminals,” he said. Crime novels, movies and rock music all were seen initially as threats, he said. In the 1950s, Mr. Smith added, social scientists warned senators that “half the juvenile delinquency in this country was being caused by reading comic books.” ‘A REAL CHILLING EFFECT’ The videogame industry agrees that some games aren’t appropriate for children. “My sons”—ages 11 and 7—”have never played anything I’ve ever worked on,” says Pete Hines, vice president for marketing at Bethesda Softworks, maker of “Fallout 3.” But the industry says its own rating system keeps inappropriate games out of children’s hands. A 2009 Federal Trade Commission report found that videogames had a stronger regulatory code than the movie or music industries, and that retailers regularly enforced the age restrictions posted on games, which limit games rated M (for mature) to consumers age 17 and older. Game makers say that if the California law is upheld, other states and cities would likely follow with their own restrictions. They say that rather than try to check ages and enforce the law strictly, big-box retailers that sell games might drop those that carry restricted labels, much as most movie theaters won’t run films rated NC-17. “Suddenly games would become a regulated commodity, like alcohol and cigarettes,” says Ted Price, president of Insomniac Games, maker of such M-rated games as “Resistance: Fall of Man.” “There will be a real chilling effect,” he says. “We will be more conservative in the ideas that we discuss, we will self-restrict for fear of our games falling under the language in this law.” Supporters of the California law say that civilization will survive. James Steyer, founder of Common Sense Media, a group that advises parents on materials it considers child-appropriate, says,
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
